When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

피고인은 2014. 8. 6. 22:30경 광주 광산구 C에 있는 ‘D’ 호프집에서 술에 취하여 대리점에 맡긴 자신의 휴대폰을 찾지 못한다고 112 신고를 한 후, 그곳에 출동한 광주광산경찰서 E지구대 소속 경찰관인 피해자 F(29세)와 같은 피해자 G(41세)가 신고경위를 파악하면서 위 호프집 손님인 H 등과 시비하는 것을 만류한다는 이유로 피해자들과 위 H 등이 듣는 가운데 피해자들에게 “짭새는 다 그러냐, 짭새라고 말한 게 무슨 죄가 되느냐”라고 큰소리로 말하여 공연히 위 피해자들을 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the I;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In full view of all the circumstances, including the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s property status (the fact that the Defendant is a general recipient under the National Basic Living Security Act) and health status, the Defendant has no criminal records exceeding the fine, and the amount of the fine specified in the summary order cannot be deemed to be excessive, given that the amount of the fine specified in the summary order cannot be deemed to be excessive (the amount of fine for the summary order is the amount that has been reduced by one million won by the prosecutor’s indictment) and the order.